2. Pramod v. Cement Corporation of India, 10-07-2018

Administration of Justice - While there is no doubt that the ultimate effort, of a court of law, is the administration of justice, it is not permissible for courts to administer justice contrary to the dictates of the law applicable. Justice can only be said to have been meaningfully dispensed when it harmonizes with the rule of law, and the substantive and procedural requirements that flow, and follow, therefrom. Courts cannot, while administering justice, needlessly afford to be swayed by sentiment, or even considerations of what it may be regard as morality.

3. Kasif v. State NCT of Delhi, 10-07-2018

Murder Trial - Integrity of samples not maintained - there were serious lapses committed by the IO in first lifting the blood stained samples from the car and then in preserving those samples. The integrity of the samples clearly was compromised making any report of the analysis of such samples to be unreliable. The question is not whether the police would deliberately plant any blood samples in the car. The question is whether when the car was kept in an open condition with the keys of the car not being sealed and being available with the IO, and also with serious lapses having been committed in the collection of the samples and the preservation of the samples, the report of analysis of such samples could be relied upon. The answer has to be, in the circumstances, in the negative.

4. Destination Cafe v. New Delhi Municipal Council, 09-07-2018

Sealing Order - Setting aside / annulling / quashing - Issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner within three days from today detailing therein the reasons for which they intend to take action of sealing against the petitioner's premises enclosing therewith the communication received by it from the Monitoring Committee and seek a reply on the same from the petitioner within four days thereafter and pass a reasoned and speaking order, on all the pleas urged / taken by the petitioner in its reply within one week thereafter. If the respondent no.1 agrees with the pleas taken by the petitioner, then the follow-up action shall be taken. If in the eventuality, the petitioner is aggrieved with the order to be passed by respondent no.1, liberty is with the petitioner to approach this Court in accordance with law.

5. Bhawish Chand Sharma v. Bawa Singh, 09-07-2018

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - cheque was issued towards the balance sale consideration - mutual agreement between the parties to disclose only a part of the consideration under the sale deed may attract other consequences for the parties - However, that by itself does not render the underlying transaction unlawful.

6. Sabina Sahdev v. Vidur Sahdev, 09-07-2018

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - A revision under Section 399 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. and an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act, against the order granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and under Section 23 of the DV Act respectively, would be maintainable, and would be entertained and heard without any pre-condition of deposit of the arrears of maintenance.

7. Devinder Singh v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, 06-07-2018

Land Revenue Act, 1954 (Delhi) - Ss. 27 & 64 - Land Revenue Rules, 1962 (Delhi) - R.415 - Settlement of disputes as to entries in Annual Register - Courts to which appeals lie - Once an order, directing entries to be made in a particular manner, is passed by the Tehsildar, after conducting a proper enquiry, it cannot be urged that the said direction by the Tehsildar is not determining any rights of the parties or that the same is merely an administrative/non-judicial order.

8. State of Gujarat v. Ashvika Construction, 06-07-2018

9. State Bar Council of M.P. v. Bar Council of India, 06-07-2018

Advocates Act, 1961 - Ss. 4 & 8 - Part-II, Chapter-1 of the Bar Council of India Rules - Term of office of Members of State Bar Council

10. Vipin Kaushik @ Vicky v. State NCT of Delhi, 05-07-2018

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 498A, 304B & 34 - Trial Court while framing charge has erred in considering the case of all the three accused at par, without examining that the allegations against the three are not at par.